On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:31 PM, John E Clifford
<kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote:
Well, it's your language, of course, and you can do what you want, but I reserve the right to object to the use of the term "logical" at various points. And I wonder why you would toss away the expressive capability of Lojban for this narrowed approach. I wonder if part of your problem is that you did not notice (and I did not stress) that I was not proposing to to go back to simple concatenation of predicates, but was rather suggesting a larger array of connectives beyond the sentential, to include the oldest , genus-differentia (the core case here), subject-verb and object-verb (both in the man-eating lion case) and several others (tbd).
I am not sure if you noticed, but I am the one who started this thread with the idea of suggesting that we introduce tanru-like stem forms that would cover novel and nonce concepts that would be otherwise tricky to express veridically using existing "official" predicates and syntax. My primary motivation was a longterm view towards protecting the "official" language from contamination by incorrect usage compelled by the pragmatic circumstances which are bound to be inevitable.
Where we disagree is that I consider the tanru mechanism to be a sort of relief valve, not the bedrock of an entire logical language, as it is in Lojban. I don't see anything inherently broken about "small stars", "pretty girls" or "black cats" being expressed as the intersection of two basic predicates, and therefore I have exactly zero desired to tanruize the entire syntax.
--
co ma'a mke
Xorban blog:
Xorban.wordpress.comMy LL blog:
Loglang.wordpress.com